Re: [PATCH v16 6/6] KVM: selftests: arm64: Add GCS registers to get-reg-list

[Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>]

On Fri, 12 Sep 2025 10:25:32 +0100,
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> GCS adds new registers GCSCR_EL1, GCSCRE0_EL1, GCSPR_EL1 and GCSPR_EL0. Add
> these to those validated by get-reg-list.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Thiago Jung Bauermann <thiago.bauermann@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/get-reg-list.c | 12 ++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/get-reg-list.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/get-reg-list.c
> index 011fad95dd02..9bf33064377b 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/get-reg-list.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/get-reg-list.c
> @@ -42,6 +42,12 @@ struct feature_id_reg {
>  static struct feature_id_reg feat_id_regs[] = {
>  	REG_FEAT(TCR2_EL1,	ID_AA64MMFR3_EL1, TCRX, IMP),
>  	REG_FEAT(TCR2_EL2,	ID_AA64MMFR3_EL1, TCRX, IMP),
> +	REG_FEAT(GCSPR_EL0,	ID_AA64PFR1_EL1, GCS, IMP),
> +	REG_FEAT(GCSPR_EL1,	ID_AA64PFR1_EL1, GCS, IMP),
> +	REG_FEAT(GCSPR_EL2,	ID_AA64PFR1_EL1, GCS, IMP),
> +	REG_FEAT(GCSCRE0_EL1,	ID_AA64PFR1_EL1, GCS, IMP),
> +	REG_FEAT(GCSCR_EL1,	ID_AA64PFR1_EL1, GCS, IMP),
> +	REG_FEAT(GCSCR_EL2,	ID_AA64PFR1_EL1, GCS, IMP),
>  	REG_FEAT(PIRE0_EL1,	ID_AA64MMFR3_EL1, S1PIE, IMP),
>  	REG_FEAT(PIRE0_EL2,	ID_AA64MMFR3_EL1, S1PIE, IMP),
>  	REG_FEAT(PIR_EL1,	ID_AA64MMFR3_EL1, S1PIE, IMP),
> @@ -486,6 +492,9 @@ static __u64 base_regs[] = {
>  	ARM64_SYS_REG(3, 0, 2, 0, 1),	/* TTBR1_EL1 */
>  	ARM64_SYS_REG(3, 0, 2, 0, 2),	/* TCR_EL1 */
>  	ARM64_SYS_REG(3, 0, 2, 0, 3),	/* TCR2_EL1 */
> +	ARM64_SYS_REG(3, 0, 2, 5, 0),	/* GCSCR_EL1 */
> +	ARM64_SYS_REG(3, 0, 2, 5, 1),	/* GCSPR_EL1 */
> +	ARM64_SYS_REG(3, 0, 2, 5, 2),	/* GCSCRE0_EL1 */
>  	ARM64_SYS_REG(3, 0, 5, 1, 0),	/* AFSR0_EL1 */
>  	ARM64_SYS_REG(3, 0, 5, 1, 1),	/* AFSR1_EL1 */
>  	ARM64_SYS_REG(3, 0, 5, 2, 0),	/* ESR_EL1 */
> @@ -502,6 +511,7 @@ static __u64 base_regs[] = {
>  	ARM64_SYS_REG(3, 0, 13, 0, 4),	/* TPIDR_EL1 */
>  	ARM64_SYS_REG(3, 0, 14, 1, 0),	/* CNTKCTL_EL1 */
>  	ARM64_SYS_REG(3, 2, 0, 0, 0),	/* CSSELR_EL1 */
> +	ARM64_SYS_REG(3, 3, 2, 5, 1),	/* GCSPR_EL0 */
>  	ARM64_SYS_REG(3, 3, 10, 2, 4),	/* POR_EL0 */
>  	ARM64_SYS_REG(3, 3, 13, 0, 2),	/* TPIDR_EL0 */
>  	ARM64_SYS_REG(3, 3, 13, 0, 3),	/* TPIDRRO_EL0 */
> @@ -740,6 +750,8 @@ static __u64 el2_regs[] = {
>  	SYS_REG(PIRE0_EL2),
>  	SYS_REG(PIR_EL2),
>  	SYS_REG(POR_EL2),
> +	SYS_REG(GCSPR_EL2),
> +	SYS_REG(GCSCR_EL2),
>  	SYS_REG(AMAIR_EL2),
>  	SYS_REG(VBAR_EL2),
>  	SYS_REG(CONTEXTIDR_EL2),
> 

More importantly, I'd expect a test that exercises the exception
paths, as the current code is pretty broken.

	M.

-- 
Jazz isn't dead. It just smells funny.